Free Press Writer Patrick Maloney, in his article “Just how long is too long?” (LFP Monday, Jan. 6/2014) raises an interesting and thought provoking question. Should there be term limits for those serving on municipal council? And, if one subscribes to the view that Council acts as the Board of Directors for the Corporation of the City of London, as they (Councillors) readily claim that they are, why then should a member of any board or council have a limitless term? Really good question.

As I started to poke around the issue, I first thought of scanning the very long and cumbersome Municipal Act (Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, CHAPTER 25) under which most aspects of local municipal authorities are governed. There, under PART II GENERAL MUNICIPAL POWERS – Scope of powers,two things jumped out at me that I thought were germane to the argument: one,

8. (1) The powers of a municipality under this or any other Act shall be interpreted broadly so as to confer broad authority on the municipality to enable the municipality to govern its affairs as it considers appropriate and to enhance the municipality’s ability to respond to municipal issues. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 8. – and two:

By-laws

(2) A single-tier municipality may pass by-laws respecting the following matters:

1. Governance structure of the municipality and its local boards.

Clearly, I am no lawyer, and there are many who are far more capable of deciphering the Municipal Act than I, but at first blush, it would appear to me that London, or any municipality in Ontario, may have the right under the Act to set its own term limits for councillors.

So let’s assume for the moment that it is possible to establish a local by-law limiting these terms. What about best practices and best results? I know it’s not the same as City Council but, here at the Chamber we have a very specific set of term limits for directors (the Board) which allows for the proper mix of continuity, wisdom, sage advice, and importantly – new ideas, fresh thought, and energy. With a two-year term extended by mutual consent for one more two year term, you end up with the ideal mix for a board of this nature. Some can move up to the executive ranks which can extend their term another four years if they are selected as a candidate for President of the Board. In their view, this is quite enough time indeed in service to the business community. This type of format yields the greatest productivity within a defined time limit, maximizes the energies required to deliver peak performance within that time line, and critically – says to the rest of the business community that there is room for you and you are encouraged to put your hat in the ring. In a perfect world, and if all the conditions remain as planned you end up with a churn or attrition rate of about one-third, one-third, one-third. In other words, a third of the directors are moving out of their terms while another third are just moving in. This provides for the greatest balance, again the best continuity, and it keeps administration on its toes. The Chamber is not the only one that operates with term limits. The LEDC, the London International Airport Authority, the London. St. Thomas Real Estate Board, the London Home Builders Association, LHSC, and the list goes on and on. Why, because in one fashion or another, these organizations know that it works. It’s simply good governance.

Looking at other models, in New York City for instance, a two-term limit was imposed on City Council members and citywide elected officials after a 1993 referendum there. And referendums to have it extended have twice failed. Similarly, U.S. President’s are limited to two terms.

And none of us needs to be reminded of the outrage over the recent Senate scandals in Canada with many organizations calling for complete reform of the upper chamber including defined term limits.

There are likely no perfect answers to the question and different arguments from both sides are worthy of more discussion. Will term limits result in “citizen legislators,” bringing more common sense and real-world experience to City Council? Probably not – as there is no evidence that term-limited councillors are any different in their political experience and ambition than those who are not term-limited. Will term limits make councils more diverse? Again, probably not as term-limited councillors are not noticeably different in occupational profile, average age, gender or race.

And then there is the question of will term limits increase competition and decrease campaign spending? I’m guessing that these won’t likely change with term limits, although their patterns might. A term-limited incumbent is rarely challenged for re-election. Instead, people interested in the job will wait for his/her final term. A good thing? – not so sure.

How about this one? Will term limits strip council of experience and policy knowledge? It’s true that dealing with council matters can be complex and it’s also true that in most cases effectiveness will increase with experience to some degree.

All of these questions and more will require vigorous debate and full consideration here in London as well as municipalities right across the province. And with the greatest respect to those long-serving councillors who have worked hard and served their community well for all these years, the time for a fulsome, practical discussion on the benefits associated with defined term limits is now. London has a choice when it comes to this discussion. We can lead, follow, or, ________(fill in the blanks).

It was the Sean Connery character, Jimmy Malone, in “The Untouchables” (1987) who made popular the expression…”Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight”. And that is exactly what London would be doing if doesn’t secure the necessary industrial lands to compete in the “fight” for industrial development and the attraction of foreign direct investment.

To be sure, every community from Windsor to Cornwall and from Ft. Frances to North Bay are all in the same fight – the quest for new development and with it, much needed new jobs.

To its credit, the City’s Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee this week unanimously approved a plan that will add a minimum of 200 hectares of industrial land to our vastly depleted and “critically low” inventory and even though the cost to acquire the land will cost tens of millions of dollars, and probably more than a decade to achieve, it’s an investment we can ill afford to turn down.

John Fleming, managing director of planning, has said, “If we don’t take on this role, we believe we will miss opportunities.” He couldn’t be more right. Communities all along the 400 series of highways are moving very aggressively to assemble as much industrial land as they can and as fast as they can because they recognize how critically important it is in the “fight” to win new business.

London’s Economic Development Corporation (LEDC) has done a great job in bringing new industries here (Dr. Oetker, The Cakery, Hanwha etc.) but if they don’t have a place where new companies can land, all of their best efforts will go for not and other communities will win the battle for new investment and jobs.

The idea that the city would create an Industrial Land Development Team that would work closely with London Economic Development Corporation to identify and acquire the necessary land is a good one and frankly long overdue. It simple makes good sense to give the LEDC the added leverage it needs to close the deal when they have a client that is keen to make a move here.

Fleming has again quite rightly pointed out that apart from land acquisition, new industries also need to know that we have the right skilled labour force available to ensure future success. Personally, I am very confident that we do, and where we may find ourselves wanting in some sectors, we have Fanshawe College and others more than willing to customize training to be sure we can fill that labour demand.

For its part, the London Chamber of Commerce has been concerned for a number of years that the lack of available industrial lands could set us back economically and put us behind the competitive eight ball if not rectified.

The report that was presented to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee was an excellent start and whether the final report comes to Council this December or later in March 2014, the message is clear. We cannot afford to let any opportunities pass us by because we did not have the foresight to secure and prepare the necessary lands that we need to attract new industry and create the jobs that we need to regain our strong economic position that we enjoyed before the downturn of 2008.

The $120 million is a lot of money to be sure, but one can only imagine the hundreds of millions that we will give up if we don’t invest it.

The President of the Board of Directors, Dave Craven and CEO Gerry Macartney, had the opportunity to present the Chamber’s positions on the upcoming 2014 Federal Budget in a pre-budget consultation hosted by London North MP, Susan Truppe on November 13th at the London Convention Centre.

During the consultation they had an opportunity to deliver the following points.

With respect to Debt Management they emphasized the critical need tobalance the federal books by 2015-2016 and ensure that the debt-to-GDP ratio falls below 30 per cent by 2016. “Your government, and in particular Finance Minister Flaherty deserve credit for establishing these goals and working to ensure that we meet them” said Dave Craven, President of the Chamber. “These are clearly in line with the goals of the London Chamber and that of our national Chamber in Ottawa”, he added.

On Program Spending they stressed that the government should limit growth in program spending to an average of 1.5 per cent per year through 2015-16 and continue to examine new ways to reduce costs, modernize how government works and ensure value for taxpayers’ money, including in the areas of service delivery, corporate asset management, travel and administrative systems.

On the matter of Tax Policy they emphasized the need for the government to ensure that Canada’s tax system is as neutral, simple, efficient and fair as possible.They also want government to avoid ad hoc changes to tax legislation, like the constant addition of special provisions and targeted tax benefits that some analysts say cost Canadian business about $2-3 billion annually. They also wanted the government to appoint an advisory panel (similar to the Advisory Panel on Canada’s System of International Taxation) to identify ways to reduce the complexity of Canada’s tax system. This should include a comprehensive review of the hundreds of exemptions, deductions, rebates, deferrals or credits that are part of the federal tax system to determine which ones are inefficient and wasteful. The panel should be supported by a secretariat and rely on the Department of Finance, the Canada Revenue Agency and the Auditor General of Canada for information and data regarding the current system.

Furthermore they want the government to reduce Canada’s heavy reliance on more damaging, high-cost sources of taxes, namely income and profit taxes, and rely more on consumption-based taxes, like the GST/HST.

Once the books are balanced, the government should be in a position to reduce the 15 per cent rate that applies to the first $43,561 of taxable income (2012) to 14 per cent, and the 22 per cent rate that applies to taxable income between $43,561 and $87,123 to 21 per cent. They can also raise the threshold at which the top federal marginal personal income tax rate kicks in to $200,000 from $135,054. As a result, income in the $135,054 and $200,000 range would be taxed at a rate of 26 per cent, down from 29 per cent.

During the exchange they also had an opportunity to share with the MP their frustration over the lack of High Speed Rail services in SW Ontario and the need for her government to demand that SW Ontario, particularly the Windsor/London to Toronto corridor, not be left out of the High Speed Rail Conversation.

Dave Craven also insisted that the Government needs to accelerate its efforts in support of the Keystone Pipeline and the opportunities that exist to export Canadian energy specifically liquid natural cast in both BC and the Maritimes.

CEO Macartney pointed out that with the advent of CETA (Canada Europe Trade Agreement) the government must do everything it can to eliminate the wasteful practice of interprovincial trade barriers that cost Canadian businesses in excess of $8 billion annually. Macartney credited Minister Flaherty for attempting to at least partially resolving one of those debilitating issues by trying to get a single securities regulator in place as opposed to the 13 we presently have in this country.

The chamber will continue to monitor these and other issues and the response to its recommendations as more details of the 2014 Federal Budget become known to us.

To suggest support for the now deferred PenEquity offer to build a signature Gateway project along London’s Hwy. 401 corridor is a watershed moment for this city would be a colossal understatement.

Forget for a moment all the arguments being tossed out by various councillors and environmentalists. What’s really at stake here is the possibility, if rejected, that a third arrow would strike right at the heart of London’s reputation as a City that says it wants to grow, that says it wants to develop the 401 corridor, and a city that claims a desperate need to grow new jobs yet fails to deliver when an opportunity like this presents itself.

Fresh on the heels of losing out to Woodstock in the competition to land the much sought after, Texas-based food-distribution giant Sysco Canada (400,000 sq. ft. food distribution employing 250 to 350) as well as the rejection of Sun Life’s proposed Industrial Park in the same general area, London may well be poised to send yet another and perhaps fatal message to developers and global investors alike that we simply don’t want you here.

Are we actually going to tell the world that we will not accept developments along that corridor unless they don’t cost us any money, produce only 6 figure income jobs, and do not impact the environment in any way, shape, or form? That, as Tom Cruise would know, is mission impossible.

And while we continue to play this dangerous game of development roulette, our competitors are kicking our teeth in all along the busiest trade corridor on the planet, the 401/402 corridor (estimated at over $2 billion daily).

The arguments that are being put forward by some councillors against the PenEquity project are troubling to say the least in that they are short on facts and long on political rhetoric. For instance, the land in question does not have 10,000 trees of significant importance. Actually the number is only 1600 of which, most are Ash and Elm that are either infected or are prone to infection. Some argue that we need to protect the wetlands that are there. Fact is there are no wetlands as defined by the Ministry of Natural Resources. It’s only a small pond area that was created by natural run off after the 401 ramp area was built in the late 90s.

And PenEquity didn’t just show up this spring, the LEDC has been working with them on this project since 2010. As to their credentials, Pen is considered a first-class developer with huge projects right across Ontario including Dundas Square in downtown Toronto and the Kanata Centre in Ottawa.

The project itself would provide a signature Gateway at the centre point of the 401/402 that could provide London the visibility that we have long desired with a premier development. And, in case we forgot, it was London (City Councillors, the LEDC, the Chamber and others) who convinced both senior levels of government to invest $100 million in the 401/402 corridor with the promise of future wealth and job creation as our collective lever. Good luck convincing them (senior government) of the need for future projects if we can’t demonstrate that we are prepared to act on that promise.

The PenEquity people are working with a number of international and North American based signature clients that could create not only a strong presence for the city, but will also provide a regional attraction position. These would be new businesses not another set of outlets of stores that are already here. Furthermore it could position London to take advantage of new high-end, US based retailers wanting to come to this region like Saks for instance, which was recently bought by the Bay.

As a life-long supporter of the free market, the contention by those that have no experience in this area that this project will simply cannibalize existing business from other parts of London is, in my view, simply a lot of noise. Pen will, as any responsible developer does, thoroughly analyze market demand and determine what can work and what cant.

Imagine if we took the view that we will never build anything in London ever again because it would compete with those that are already here. You would never have had a Masonville, White Oaks, Home Depots, Lowes, or two Costcos. Hmmmm….seems they are doing quite well thank you very much.

Councilors who contend that the Pen Equity development will poach existing businesses off of Wellington Street or as far away as Masonville, fail to realize that retailers will go where the market dictates. Case in point, Canadian Tire & Winners at Masonville moved to the Hyde Park big box plaza few years ago. Toys R Us and others moved from Wellington to the Wonderland/Southdale region last year – Home Depot from Wharncliffe to Wonderland/Southdale and the list goes on and on.

And are those former locations empty now? Of course not! The market, as it always does, moves in to fill the demand and the new operators in those old locations are doing very well. Only the market can determine what works and what doesn’t.

Moreover, as a destination we attract customers from an area of over 650,000 people, not to mention the potential for attracting new 401 business from the 60,000+ domestic and U.S. vehicles passing each day.

According to the Altus Group (who participate in many London initiatives), they are able to confirm the following forecasts for the project;

• 681 person-years of employment in direct construction representing over 300 jobs during the development phase

• 150 employment jobs regarding materials and services during the construction of the development.

• 1,200 jobs in the completed development based on the average profile of the anticipated clients

• Approx. $9.4 million in development charge revenue for the City.

• Approx. $440,000 in building permit revenue for the City;

• And, an annual property tax revenue of approximately $2.8 million.

Some Councilors insist that there is no way of getting people to this proposed site as there is no public transit. Wrong again, there is existing service along Wellington and Wilton Grove areas directly across from the proposed site and if successful you can bet the LTC would ramp up service to meet demand.

One of the weakest arguments I have heard in opposition to this development is that we (London) don’t want retail jobs and yet these same naysayers are often the ones that demand more work for our youth in an effort to retain them in London.

Fact is, youth employment is the highest in the retail sector and if we hope to retain our youth in London we will need more, not less retail jobs. Besides, retail is an excellent learning ground for business and with a little effort and hard work, management jobs in retail can be quite lucrative, I know from experience. On the flip side of the coin, the City of Ottawa very progressively started a matching service for youth with available jobs in the …..wait for it – Retail sector!! Good on you Ottawa!

So as we watch the growing number of shoppers (including thousands of Londoners) heading off to the jammed Outlet Mall in Milton as well as the other retail giants that have and will continue pop up along the 401, some London councilors would convince you to wait instead for the construction of the next Mayo Clinic, or Microsoft for the so-called knowledge jobs they provide. Really!

My advice is to start asking these same councilors why no investors are interested in London at all….for anything, anytime. In fact you should start asking them right now. Watch for the electronic voting results on this issue in the days and weeks ahead, write them down and remember them when election time roles around next November.

If you are like me, whenever I get stuck in those frustratingly long line ups waiting for that #*^!@ …train to clear through the core, I continually ask myself – what the heck were they thinking? That moment passes quickly as I snap back to reality and remember that the reason those trains are going through our town, at what seems like the most inconvenient of times, is quite simply because it means business is working.

Area plants are manufacturing products for export in one direction and the feedstock they need to build their products are flowing in from the opposite direction. That means business alright and that means thousands of jobs right here in London and across the country.

That being said, no one will ever forget the unfortunate and tragic derailment that took place in Lac-Megantic, Quebec this past July. Events like that are not only horrific, they are entirely preventable. Doubtless the entire rail industry will be under enormous pressure to guarantee the maximum safety for their passengers, crews, and all Canadians who live on or near a rail line.

And again, if you are like me, you may also ponder from time to time, exactly what is in all those tanker cars that pass right through our downtown every day of the week. Could a Lac-Megantic disaster happen here? Well you only have to drive down the 401 for an hour and half and ask the good people of Mississauga. (Nov. 1979 – 200,000 people evacuated after train from Windsor derails with explosives and chemicals on board).

To no one’s surprise, since the tragic derailment of the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic train in Lac-Mégantic, many civic officials (hopefully including our own) have been contacting CN and CP, asking for more information on the commodities that pass through their jurisdictions and what plans are in place to ensure that this type of disaster never occurs again.

I was contacted recently by my good friend Sean Finn, Executive Vice-President, Corporate Services of CN and the former Chair of the Board for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. To be clear, while I may be a good friend of Sean’s, CN by no means needs a Gerry Macartney as an apologist for Canada’s rail industry. Though CN was not involved in this incident, they clearly recognize the concerns being expressed by municipalities across the entire country and I am thankful that Sean took the time to share these perspectives with me.
First, as we already know, the tragic and unusual incident that took place at Lac-Mégantic, Québec will be thoroughly investigated by federal authorities to determine what went wrong, and it’s is a sober reminder that safety must be an absolute priority in the rail industry. Agreed! And, notwithstanding that accidents can, and do happen, the movement of hazardous material by rail is in fact handled with a high level of safety. More than 99 per cent of dangerous goods moving by rail arrive at their destination without a release caused by an accident. That is reassuring and as much as we would all like that to be 100%, that will likely never be achieved by any mode of transportation.

CN has a network of more than 23,000 miles and on it they transport a wide array of products. These products are essential to our local and national economy and one could argue, our way of life for communities across Canada. They include forest products, metals and minerals, grains and fertilizers, automotive products, petroleum and chemicals, coal, defense machinery, and a variety of consumer goods carried in intermodal containers. Any of these products, including those classified as Dangerous Goods, can be expected to be moved on any part of the CN rail network.

The Railway regularly shares information with responsible authorities, including municipal officials and responders, on what commodities are handled through their jurisdiction. This is done to assist municipal emergency planners and responders in developing effective and realistic emergency response plans.

Railways in Canada and the United States are subject to extensive safety regulation. Through the Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response (TRANSCAER®), CN works closely to help communities understand the movement of hazardous materials and what is required in the event of transportation incidents. They also work with partner chemical companies to support communities with information sessions and training and simulations for community leaders and first-responders about hazardous commodities.

Are any of these things an iron-clad guarantee that incidents like Lac-Megantic will never happen again? We certainly hope so. But, if nothing else it has put the entire rail industry in Canada on high alert in ensuring that operators like CN, provide the utmost in safety for the communities through which they operate. And that at least provides me with some increased confidence that the likelihood or probability of another catastrophic disaster can be averted.

The London Chamber of Commerce has donated a modest sum to the Lac-Megantic Red Cross Relief Fund. Let’s hope it provides at least a small measure of relief for those who suffered the tragic loss of friends and relatives. Let’s hope too, that we have taken away some hard lessons from this tragedy and that Canada’s rail industry will, more than ever, place our safety first.

Please feel free to contact us at the Chamber should you wish to have the contact information for CN with respect to the transportation of hazardous commodities that move through London.

We should never be surprised when politicians, the media or just everyday Londoners hit the panic button when we get ever worsening news about our unemployment numbers. In fact, you could hardly blame them. But first, let’s address what nobody seems to want to talk about and that is that our 9.1% unemployment number includes St. Thomas and other area communities within our Census Metropolitan Area (CMA). That doesn’t make me feel any better and it sure doesn’t make our friends in St. Thomas feel any better but it’s the truth and we should bear that in mind.

It’s also been implied by some politicians in this very paper, that organizations in the city that receive public funding are not doing enough or that they are not meeting collectively to resolve our unemployment challenges. And they name them – the LEDC, SWEA, Tech Alliance, the College and the University. Also implicated (more or less) in that same story is the Chamber of Commerce. And, while it’s true that the Chamber is “committed to the enhancement of economic prosperity and quality of life in London” (excerpt from our Mission Statement), the Chamber is in no way publicly funded, nor does it have economic development or job creation in its mandate.

To be clear, and while there is no obligation to do so, we have very strong working relations with the LEDC, the City, the College and the University and have on occasion assisted both the Tech Alliance and SWEA with their respective initiatives.

That being said, it may be useful to share with Londoners what efforts the Chamber has undertaken to in part, address this growing concern. First, we have recently completed a very successful partnership with the London Middlesex Immigrant Employment Council (LMIEC) with a year-long project titled Global Experience @ Work (GE@W). This was a strategy to better integrate Internationally Trained Individuals (ITIs) into the workforce. The mission of the project was to increase awareness among London Chamber members (particularly SMEs) of the need to attract, recruit, hire and retain ITIs; and to connect London Chamber members with the tools and resources available to them.

Was the mission accomplished? And how! In fact the results were rather stunning. Specifically we wanted to connect 50 ITIs with employment, mentorship or a volunteer work experience placement opportunity. To date, 109 ITIs have found commensurate employment, been matched with a mentor or received a volunteer work experience placement. 34 of them found commensurate employment at a Chamber member company; 44 were matched with a mentor at a Chamber company; and 31 were provided with a volunteer placement opportunity.

Newer initiatives designed to increase export market opportunities and attract job-creating Foreign Direct Investment into London include the Chamber initiated and award winning ABOC (Asian Business Opportunities Committee), HBO (Hispanic Business Opportunities Committee) and recently GBOC (Global Business Opportunities Council).

Collectively, these new undertakings are populated by private sector Chamber members, representatives from the LEDC, the City’s Administration, the Mayor, the University through Kings College, Fanshawe College, Export Development Canada, Schulich School of Medicine to name a few.

The ABOC arm of this grouping has already completed two successful missions to China in 2012/13 where critically important MOUs (Memorandums of Understanding) were signed with partner groups in Nanjing, Chongqing, Chengdu, and the Sichuan Provinces Chamber of Commerce for Import Export. More are anticipated with Korea, Japan, and possibly Brazil under the GBOC mandate.

On another note, the Skills Crisis, easily the number one barrier to competitiveness in Canada is being tackled head on by the Chamber’s President of the Board, Gus Kotsiomitis through his hand-picked task force. Efforts are already underway to develop both provincial and federal policy resolutions designed to require both levels of senior government to resolve this critical issue and much of that momentum will come through the London Chamber’s own policy committees. Further to the Skills Crisis issue the Chamber has commissioned the Hon. Perrin Beatty, CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to come to London on April 30th to head up an esteemed panel that will not only identify where the skills gap is hurting us the most, but how we can work to solve it.

Lastly, The Chamber has played a key role along with the Ontario Chamber in rolling out the all-party supported “Emerging Stronger” document – a Transformative Agenda for Ontario which has identified five priority areas where we as a province and as a city need to focus our efforts in transforming our economies and getting people back to work. They include: Fostering a Culture of Innovation; Building a 21st Century Workforce; Restoring Fiscal Balance by Improving the Way Government Works; Taking Advantage of New Global Economies; and Championing Strategic Investment in our Competitive Advantages within the Global Economy.

So is the Chamber then satisfied that it is doing all it can to boost our economy and help to create jobs? Emphatically NO – and it never will be. But the Chamber has a plan and it intends to follow it.

On behalf of the Board of Directors of the London Chamber of Commerce, we applaud recent efforts to reform the EI program under the Canada Action Plan. As you may know the London Chamber has been an active and vocal advocate for many of these changes but in our view, these changes are not enough. Employers in our region in particular will be hit with Employment Insurance premium rate increases in 2013. This, in light of the ongoing economic struggles all of our companies in this region are still experiencing.

Over the last 10 years, London employers as well as those across Ontario have paid $20 billion dollars more into the program than they have received in return. Employers, who have paid the bulk of this bill, are effectively subsidizing workers and businesses in other regions of the country.

Training programs that are funded by employer premiums short change Ontario to the tune of $269 million every year. If Ontario received its fair share of these dollars, it could double the Second Career program, which helps individuals train for a new career. Meanwhile, many Ontario employers are having trouble finding workers with the right skills.

A recent report makes several recommendations to fix the EI program so that it works for all Canadians, including those among us who work and do business in Ontario. They include:

Reforming EI so that there is one national standard for qualification and one benefit formula for all Canadians.

Funding all federal training and active employment measures through a single, general revenue-funded transfer to the provinces/territories.

Allocating funding for federal skills and training on the basis of the number of unemployed.

We would respectfully ask that you share our concerns with the Prime Minister and his Cabinet so that your constituents and our members have the best possible chance to come out of this lengthy economic downturn as quickly as possible and once again return to a more stable and vibrant contributor to the national economy.